What Conservative Economists think about Donald Trump's Economic policies.

With only a week left till the most bizarre Presidential election in the history of the United States of America, I find I have a few associates and even friends who support Donald Trump. Considering that these people are actually somewhat informed, and all have functioning brains if not higher than average intelligence, I am left wondering WTF….how can these people not see what seems so clear to me and almost every other thoughtful, informed, educated person I know….that Donald Trump is a total whack job and would be a complete disaster as POTUS. All of them agree that he is a rather nasty guy and is given to erratic and often offensive behavior. All would agree that he is totally undependable, often unstable, extremely arrogant and a loose cannon. All agree that any of these character traits would be a liability in the White House. So, what gives? A clear preponderance of these people say two things: one is “I don’t like Hillary” . OK I get that. The second is that they think Trump would be better for the economy. I thought it might be interesting if I did some research regarding this assumption. The question being: if we ignored Donald’s peculiar, vulgar, egotistical tendency’s. If we overlook his racism, xenophobia, Islamaphobia, misogynistic, narcissistic, behavior. If we just pretend we could count on him to do what he says and look at some of his proposals and take them at face value, what would we find?

I took a look to see what some respected, conservative publications and respected conservative economists feel about a Trump White House based on what he has proposed or put forth so far in this campaign. I did some google searching and looked to some conservative economists that I follow (I am a fiscal conservative myself after all). What follows are a few of my findings and some guys I think are pretty sharp.

The BOTTOM LINE IS THAT LITTERLY NO Nationally recognized economist without a vested interested or any skin in the game considers Trump’s potential economic policies as anything but disastrous. I find Brian Westbury’s analysis very telling, basically implying that Donald Trump is far from a fascial conservative and the GOP is not only complaisant but basically at fault and hypocritical in their accusation that Trump is an eco-disaster in the making. I have taken the liberty of taking some quotes out of context (I know…my bad) however I have provided the associated links for all of you who care to read the the pieces in their entirety. Please enjoy and happy reading.

Brian Westbury, Conservative Chief Economist, First Trust

http://www.ftportfolios.com/blogs/EconBlog/2015/9/24/how-tarp-created-trump

http://www.thinkadvisor.com/2016/06/01/why-clinton-trump-el-erian-are-wrong-on-economy-f

https://twitter.com/wesbury/status/733524755307864066

https://twitter.com/wesbury/status/728579089616015361

"Back in 2008, rather than fix mark-to-market accounting, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, Federal Reserve Board Chair Ben Bernanke, and other members of the financial market crisis team, chose to use a government-funded bazooka. A $700 billion bank bailout named The Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.

President Bush, who authorized this approach, later explained it by saying he "abandoned free market principles to save the free market." That statement makes no sense. Either you believe in free markets, or you don't. Violating a free market means it's not free. More truthfully, the Bush team abandoned free markets because it was the politically expedient thing to do.

But, by doing this, Republican leadership undermined a sacrosanct belief of conservatism – markets are self-healing and government intervention creates unintended consequences. Abandoning this philosophy left voters literally adrift. Politics is just politics. The GOP ship has no anchor or rudder. Why vote for a philosophy if those who claim to support it do so only when it is convenient? The result: Donald Trump.

So, the next time the GOP claims Donald Trump isn't reflective of conservative values, they ought to look in the mirror. They created him. The only way out is for Paul Ryan, George Bush, The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page, Hank Paulson and every other GOP member that supported TARP to admit it was a mistake.

The way to beat Donald Trump is to attack the Establishment GOP, not cozy up to it. Even John Kasich, a moderate,  seems to understand this. Trump is the result of a vacuum in principled leadership. A rudderless ship, or a ship with no anchor in a storm, creates fear."

John Mauldin, Conservative Economist, Financial Advisor, Mauldin Economics

https://twitter.com/JohnFMauldin/status/674993495099183105

Okay, let me just say it right here (even though this is going to anger more than a few of you): Donald Trump is the only man in America who could get me to vote for Hillary Clinton. You have to understand that my distaste for the policies that Mrs. Clinton would institute is monumental. I can’t tell you how bad a continuation of the current political climate would be for this country. But to have a loose cannon like Donald Trump in the White House – a man who could say and do just about anything at any time, with no control of his ego – would be too much.

Ben Stine, conservative Writer, Economist, Republican, Speech writer for Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. The Guardian, Conservative Economic Press

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jun/04/ben-stein-interview-donald-trump-economics

Imagine Trump is elected president and he starts enforcing some of the policies he has mentioned. Would the economy improve, stay the same or get worse?

It would get much worse. In terms, it would be a disaster. Trade is very important. The US economy is roughly 15% trade dependent – very roughly 15%.

If the regular folks think that China came along in the middle of the night and stole all their jobs, then nothing could be further from the truth. It’s just nonsense. I think Trump is popular because he says: I am going to go to China and get those jobs back. But he is not going to be able to do that. And any attempt to try would be a disaster. I don’t think Trump knows a goddamn thing about economics.

National Review, Conservative Press

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/433814/donald-trump-not-economic-conservative

The billionaire casino mogul claims he’ll lower tax rates and can eliminate the nation’s $19 trillion debt over the next eight years — a claim I am certain was pulled from the rarified air at Trump Tower for no particular policy reason. Trump promises to never cut Social Security, Medicare, or defense spending — because you can promise anything you like when reality is no object.

Wall Street Journal, I regard as pretty bipartisan but arguably having a fiscal conservative favor.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/06/20/u-s-economy-would-be-diminished-under-trumps-economic-plan-new-analysis-says/

A new analysis concludes Donald Trump’s economic proposals, taken at face value, could produce a prolonged recession and heavy job losses that would fall hardest on low- and middle-income workers.

Mr. Trump’s tax plan would lower tax rates across the board and limit some deductions. The Tax Policy Center, a project of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, said the plan would cut federal revenues by $9.5 trillion, while the Tax Foundation, a think tank that favors lower taxes, said the plan would cost $10 trillion over a decade, even after assuming higher economic growth.

The report singles out trade and immigration policies as the most detrimental to the economy in the short run because they could sharply boost labor and goods prices at a time when there’s less slack in the labor market. “It is a massive supply shock to the economy that’s very pernicious, and the Fed doesn’t know how to respond to that,” said Mr. Zandi.

On trade, Mr. Trump has said he would use the threat of a 45% tariff on goods from China and 35% on non-oil imports from Mexico as a negotiating tool in seeking better trade and currency terms. Moody’s calculates that tariffs on imports from Mexico and China could increase goods import prices by 15%, raising overall consumer prices by 3%—all before factoring in the costs of retaliation against U.S. exporters.

The Moody’s economists warn that those tariffs would raise uncertainty for businesses, reducing American exports while corroding growth. While higher tariffs would quickly lead importers to move production to other countries, this would take time and also raise costs for businesses.

Separate projections made earlier this year by Peter Petri of Brandeis University found that Mr. Trump’s proposed tariffs would widen the U.S. trade deficit for goods by around $275 billion, or an 37% increase above last year’s level.

On immigration, Moody’s estimates that a crackdown on illegal immigration through forced deportations would reduce slack in the labor force but also leave more positions unfilled, particularly in industries such as agriculture where native-born workers have been reluctant to seek work even at modestly higher wages. Labor shortages in those industries could prompt job losses in upstream and downstream industries and also boost inflation as labor costs run higher, the report said.

Donald Trump: Wrolds second most litigious man.

Donald Trump is NOT the worlds most litigious man. I bet that really pisses him off, but he only has 500 more to go. At DT's usual rate that will only be a couple years. After being named in 3500 law suits I figured Donald Trump would hold the world record for the most law suits ever. After some research to turns out I was wrong.... there is actually one crazy guy who has been named in more law suits. Jonathan Lee Riches named by Guinness book of Records as The worlds most litigious man. Imprisoned in Lexington, Ky., for wire fraud, Riches, aka Irving Picard, wrote in his handwritten document that he's actually filed more than 4,000 lawsuits in countless courts. After hearing the Guinness Book of World Records planned to name him the most litigious man, one federal prisoner did what he does best -- he sued.
So a crazed Federal inmate has 500 more law suits that the Donald. I thought it was impossible, but apparently Mr Riches has little else to do to occupy his time.
DOES ANYONE REALLY THINK HAVING THE SECOND MOST LITIGIOUS  MAN AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS A GOOD IDEA ??????

An attempt to explain the irony of Jesus loving Trump Supporters.

Jesus was undeniably a very cool dude. His life and teachings are the foundation of all Christianity which today represents thirty one percent of the world population or two point two billion people. If you don't happen to totally believe that he was divine and the son of God and sent here to guide us, teach us and ultimately die for our sins, that's fine. The historical records (as best they can be extruded) do tell us that his life was extraordinary and that he taught a philosophy that all of humanity can benefit from. "Love thy neighbor as thyself", "Turn the other cheek", "blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth" are a few quotes I remember from Sunday school. The bottom line is that this guy wanted us to love and care for each other no matter who we were. It mattered little to him if someone was different, poor, neglected, scorned by society, or otherwise didn't conform to the customs of the time. In fact, those were the people he most sought to comfort and help. He taught peace and goodwill, not war and distrust. He preached that those who are blessed with health, status, wealth, and material possessions should seek to assist and help those who are not.

Unfortunately the teaching and philosophy of this extraordinary man are not always represented by the people in many (in my opinion most) of today's organized religions. Personalities often seem to usurp principals. When Jesus said love thy neighbor I don't think he qualified it with a " unless they're gay" or "unless they are a different color" or " unless they believe in science" or on and on add infinitum.

This basic hypocrisy has always troubled me however it has not really had a direct impact upon my own life until now. This leads me to the current political climate in America and the inexplicable phenomenon known as Donald Trump. Trump seem to appeal to a swath of middle white America; mostly blue collar, working class with a professed religious belief and a deep dissatisfaction for "the direction that our country is going". It strikes me as profoundly ironic that many so called Christians, who would theoretically follow the teachings of Jesus would support a man who so diametrically opposes those same teachings. Trump's mantra has never been " love thy neighbor", on the contrary, his motto is "Fuck Thy neighbor"! By every appearance and shred of evidence, he has lived his life to this motto and then some. Clearly someone who belittles and insults parents of a United States solder killed in the line of duty or a journalist with physical handicaps has some serious issues. Clearly a man who would profess that Mexican immigrants are all rapists and murderers or that an American born Judge with 30 years on the bench can't do his job because of his Hispanic heritage, must possess some inherent racism. Of course I could go on and on, but the bottom line is that Trump displays absolutely none of the ideology taught by Jesus. So why are these people actually supporting him to become their leader. It just seems so mind boggling.

I can only come up with one theory, so I will make my case in light of the afore mentioned hypocrisy where the teachings of Jesus seem to come with multiple caveats. First, we must recognize that Trump is a narcissist and a pathological liar. His entire life is proof that he will do or say anything regardless of consequence in order to get attention. His slogans play to a broken and desperate America that only he can fix. It matters little if he has any viable realistic plans, or that little of what he says is true. All that matters is that he gets the attention. He clams to possess the ability to "make America win again". Of course this is a preposterous proposition, presupposing that "winning" is a zero sum game, and that if the United States is "winning" than someone else is losing and visa versa. This is the attitude of a simpleton and an egomaniac best reserved for the 8 year old school yard. Geo political diplomacy does not work that way, but Trump seems to have convinced much of this disenfranchised middle America that he can make them happy.

All of this begs the question: why is this segment of white, mostly male, mostly Christian middle America feeling disenfranchised? What the fuck do they mean "take America back again"? When questioned most allure to some bygone era, some "leave it to Beaver" America of the fifties. Some are simply angry because that's the band wagon to jump on while politicians and conservative media convince them how awful thing are. I do not disparage the real unfortunate workers who have lost their place in the work force due to technology, automation, or cheap overseas labor, but that situation can only be remedied by training, education and a true recognition that the nature of labor in America (and globally) is shifting and we need to adapt. Playing the blame game and singling out scapegoats as Trump is incredibly good at does nothing positive but serves him well by further fueling the anger and even turning it into hate....He claims it's the Mexicans fault or the Chinese, or the Muslims, and he does a pretty darn good job of stirring the pot. The bottom line is that Donald Trump has a portion of America that feels they have "lost" something eating right out of his hand. But once again, what have they lost? I propose that White, Anglo, Christian males have been in a position of privilege for most of American history. Without a doubt, even if you were working class, even if you were downright poor, you still held privilege in 20th century America. No one in their right mind could argue, a white Anglo Saxon Christian man had privilege that was not enjoyed by Blacks, native Americans, Hispanics, Asians, women, Arabis, Jews, Mormons,  not to mention Gays, lesbians and transgender's. There is a quote, I'm not sure who coined it but it goes like this: "When one is accustom to privilege, equality feels like oppression".
I think this quote goes a long way in explaining the feeling of disenfranchisement by many Trump supporters. It might not be that they are "losing" something, but that other once marginalized segments of society are "gaining" something. America has moved in the proper direction regarding equal rights and equal treatment and equal opportunity. It is by no means prefect but progress has been made. Unlike Trump would have us believe, it is NOT a zero sum game. Just because someone is "gaining" in equality and opportunity it doesn't mean that someone else is "losing" theirs. Of course they will lose some of their "privilege" but that is a good thing because we are a country that believes that all people are created equal.....not privileged!! Equality can feel like oppression. But it’s not. What they are feeling is just the discomfort of losing a little bit of their privilege — the same discomfort that an only child feels when she goes to preschool and discovers that there are other kids who want to play with the same toys as she does.

And here we are back at the playground where the school bully wants the swing set all to himself. I think Jesus would want us to share. I think Jesus would want us to love and respect each other, not try to cling to a position of privilege at the sacrifice of others. I think Jesus would want us to be compassionate and tolerant of all human beings. Hopefully some Trump supporters will come to understand the incredible irony and extreme conflict between their moral values and the self serving ideology of Donald Trump.

The POTUS candidates bizarre and impractical ideas on Trade and Immigration

"But the idea that trade fuels inequality is a very parochial perspective, and protectionists who shroud themselves in a moralistic inequality narrative are deeply hypocritical. As far as trade is concerned, the current US presidential campaign is an embarrassment of substance, not just of personality."

Anyone who has ever had the slightest interest in global macro economics, knows that Kenneth Rogoff is an economist "rock star". His argument as to how utterly stupid the "anti trade" rhetoric we are bombarded with by Presidential candidates, is right on the money. Most of his argument centers on the disastrous consequences bestowed on developing economies around the globe (and the indirect and eventual unintended consequences experienced do by the U.S.) However, the immediate impact upon the U.S. resulting in polices preferred by the likes of Trump and Cruz would by even more devastating. Loss of jobs, stifled consumption, higher prices for most consumer products and reduced demand for U.S. technology just to name a few. The CBO estimates that Trump's trade policies regarding China and Mexico alone would cost 4 million U.S. jobs....that's more than one percent of the entire U.S. Population !!!!! I find it inconceivable that any U.S. citizen cannot grasp the fact that the Trump proposed 40% tariff on Chinese imports means an immediate, direct, and certain 40% increase in price in at least half of the products they buy every day. Does anyone actually want to pay an extra $200 for their iPhone? Ether the Propaganda that the republican (and to a lesser degree the democratic) candidates are spewing is really working well, or the American public is awfully masochistic. Maybe it is a bit of both and for the most part they are simply uninformed.

This is not to mention their proposed immigration policies. Every economist knows, when the population grows the economy grows, when the population stops growing.......well, so does the economy. The U.S. Today has zero organic population growth and the demographics are getting older and older. How do we increase the "working age population" of the U.S so there are enough 20-40-year-old white and blue collar workers to keep the economy growing and take care of us old farts?????

IMMIGRATION......duh....Its little comfort that a simple man such as myself knows way more about this stuff that all the potential presidential candidates. 

From: Project Syndicate April 7, 2016 by Kenneth Rogoff. 

CAMBRIDGE – The rise of anti-trade populism in the 2016 US election campaign portends a dangerous retreat from the United States’ role in world affairs. In the name of reducing US inequality, presidential candidates in both parties would stymie the aspirations of hundreds of millions of desperately poor people in the developing world to join the middle class. If the political appeal of anti-trade policies proves durable, it will mark a historic turning point in global economic affairs, one that bodes ill for the future of American leadership.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has proposed slapping a 45% tax on Chinese imports into the US, a plan that appeals to many Americans who believe that China is getting rich from unfair trade practices. But, for all its extraordinary success in recent decades, China remains a developing country where a significant share of the population live at a level of poverty that would be unimaginable by Western standards.

Saving the IMF

PS On Point: Your review of the world’s leading opinions on global issues.

Consider China’s new five-year plan, which aims to lift 55 million people above the poverty line by 2020, a threshold defined as just CN¥2,300, or $354, per year. This compares with a poverty line of around $12,000 for a single person in the US. Yes, there are significant cost-of-living differences that make direct comparisons dubious, and, yes, poverty is as much a social condition as an economic one, at least in advanced economies; but the general point that inequality between countries swamps inequality within countries is a very powerful one.

And China’s poverty problem is hardly the world’s worst. India and Africa both have populations roughly comparable to China’s 1.4 billion people, with significantly smaller shares having reached the middle class.

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is a far more appealing individual than “The Donald,” but his anti-trade rhetoric is almost as dangerous. Following prominent left-leaning economists, Sanders rails against the proposed new Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), even though it would do much to help the developing world – for example, by opening up Japan’s market to Latin American imports.

Sanders even hammers his opponent Hillary Clinton for her support of earlier trade deals such as the 1992 North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Yet that agreement forced Mexico to lower its tariffs on US goods far more than it forced the US to reduce its already low tariffs on Mexican goods. Unfortunately, the resounding success of Sanders’s and Trump’s anti-trade rhetoric has pulled Clinton away from her more centrist position, and might have the same effect on many members of the House and Senate. This is a recipe for disaster.

The TPP does have its flaws, particularly in its overshoot on protection of intellectual property rights. But the idea that the deal will be a huge job killer for the US is highly debatable, and something does need to be done to make it easier to sell high-tech goods to the developing world, including China, without fear that such goods will be instantly cloned. A failure to ratify the TPP would almost certainly condemn tens of millions of people in the developing world to continued poverty.

The right remedy to reduce inequality within the US is not to walk away from free trade, but to introduce a better tax system, one that is simpler and more progressive. Ideally, there would be a shift from income taxation to a progressive consumption tax (the simplest example being a flat tax with a very high exemption). The US also desperately needs deep structural reform of its education system, clearing obstacles to introducing technology and competition.

Indeed, new technologies offer the prospect of making it far easier to retrain and retool workers of all ages. Those who advocate redistribution by running larger government budget deficits are being short sighted. Given adverse demographics in the advanced world, slowing productivity, and rising pension obligations, it is very hard to know what the endgame of soaring debt would be.

Do pro-deficit progressives realize that the burden of any future debt crises (or financial-repression measures) are likely to fall disproportionately on poor and middle-income citizens, as they have in the past? Simple redistribution of income through taxes and transfers is far more direct and more potent, and would certainly serve to expand aggregate demand.

Anyone who portrays the US as a huge loser from the global economic status quo needs to gain some perspective on the matter. I have little doubt that a century from now, Americans’ consumption-centric lifestyle will no longer be viewed as something to envy and emulate, and the country’s failure to implement a carbon tax will be viewed as a massive failure. With under 5% of the world’s population, the US accounts for a vastly disproportionate share of carbon-dioxide emissions and other pollution, with much of the blame falling on America’s middle class.

But the idea that trade fuels inequality is a very parochial perspective, and protectionists who shroud themselves in a moralistic inequality narrative are deeply hypocritical. As far as trade is concerned, the current US presidential campaign is an embarrassment of substance, not just of personality.